Use of property details from pleadings permitted for stamp duty assessment to finalize an undrawn consent decree.

The suit, involving a declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement," resulted in a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997

The decree was based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned properties but lacked specific technical descriptions and title deed details

Consequently, the Collector was unable to assess the stamp duty required for the registration and completion of the decree, as stated in a report dated November 28, 2025

Previous applications by the defendant No. 1 to modify the decree under Section 152 of the CPC were rejected by the High Court and the Supreme Court because the omissions did not constitute clerical or arithmetical errors

However, a subsequent coordinate Bench judgment on April 3, 2019, held that the parties should not be left remediless and directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from the pleadings and record

The current application seeks to provide these technical details via a supplementary affidavit to facilitate the Collector's assessment

1. Whether the rejection of previous applications under Section 152 CPC and the doctrine of merger bar the court from providing technical property details to the Collector for stamp duty assessment

2. Whether technical property details introduced via a supplementary affidavit constitute an impermissible improvement of the original application or decree

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the correction of clerical mistakes in decrees

Chapter XVIA Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which permits the Registrar to include short recitals in a decree derived from the pleadings and record

Doctrine of Merger established in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359

principle of finality of rejected reliefs from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey (2001) 1 SCC 73

rule against improving a case through supplementary affidavits as discussed in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association (2003) 4 CompLJ 333 (Cal)

The Court held that the current application is distinct from the previous Section 152 proceedings; while the former sought to alter the decree (which was rejected), the current application seeks the completion and drawing up of the decree to allow the parties to enjoy its fruits

The Court reasoned that the doctrine of merger did not apply because a subsequent coordinate Bench (order dated April 3, 2019) had already mandated the Department to complete the decree using available materials

Furthermore, the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were deemed not to be "new" evidence but were particulars existing in title deeds and prior pleadings

Since the Collector specifically requested these details to fulfill a statutory duty (assessment of stamp duty), providing them was considered a procedural necessity rather than an unauthorized modification of the 1997 consent decree

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the Collector within a fortnight, and the Collector was ordered to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks. The prayers for a stay of this order by the respondents were rejected